One of the things philosophy functions
to do is help us to go beyond our normal modes of thinking (i.e., it helps
us think outside of the box). Philosophical ethics, accordingly, helps
us to rethink our approach to moral problem solving. Environmentalism is
just that sort of rethinking: it is a new paradigm of thought challenging
us to go beyond utilitarianism and deontology.

A. Two Judeo-Christian Perspectives

One of the questions which preoccupies
environmentalists is whether the needed paradigm shift requires us to jettison
Judeo-Christian metaphysics. This question largely turns on which of two
interpretations we give to the story of Genesis:

Despotic Interpretation of Genesis:
Subdue the Earth, use it as you please, and repopulate it with humans;

Stewardship Interpretation of
Genesis: Take care of and respect other beings, for they too are God's
creatures.

If we adopt the "despotic" reading,
it's very difficult (if not impossible) to make environmentalism consistent
with Western Religion

-religion here demands that we treat
our environment as a hostile place and our fellow species as antagonists
to be subdued

-some argue that this is exactly
where we are and that our current status with the environment is one where
we have waged a war and are destroying everything

-if we are to stop this war, they
argue, a war which no one can win, we must abandon the religious tradition
which promoted such an antagonistic attitude

But if, on the other hand, we adopt
a "stewardship" reading of Genesis, environmentalism seems less inconsistent
with Western Religion

-religion here does not demand that
we dominate and subdue, but care for our land as we would our own children

-here it is argued that what we
have done to the environment is not only foolish, but in opposition to
religious teaching

-the solution, then, according to
this view, is a matter not of abandoning our religious tradtion, but following
it more thoughfully

B. Three Secular Perspectives:

On the secular front, three readings
of moral considerability have emerged in the last century:

Humanism: Animals and other
beings have value insofar as they serve humans; humans are the locus of
all value

Extensionism: Animals and
other beings have value inasmuch as they share morally valuable traits
with humans; sentient life is the locus of value

Biocentrism: All living things
have value independent of human beings; life itself is the locus of value

The humanistic approach to ethics,
which is consistent with both of the above Judeo-Christian perspectives,
gives humans and only humans moral agency. moral considerability, and (generally)
intrinsic value.

-plants, animals, ecosystems and
the earth are valuable only as means to our ends

-Kantian ethics clearly sees moral
obligation in this way in that it deems rationality as the locus of value
and denies the status of rationality to all earthly dwellers besides human
beings (there are those who seek to extend this status to others, but hold
firm in the belief that rationality is what matters); utilitarian ethics
is less prone to this view of moral obligation in that it does not make
rationality the sole source of moral status, yet its proponent still tend
to emphasize human needs above all others

The extensionist approach extends
moral considerability and intrinsic value to other beings sharing certain
traits with human beings. The predominant view is that sentience--the capacity
to feel pleasure and pain is the main criterion of moral status

-non-human animals, especially those
with "highly developed" nervous systems, are considered to have intrinsic
value

-this view is inconsistent with
most readings of Kantian ethics; utilitarian ethics, on the other hand,
is the foundation for this approach inasmuch as it was born out a denial
that reason is the sole source of moral considerability and proposed that
sentience is the real source

The biocentrist approach moves beyond
the other paradigms of thought by proclaiming life itself to be the locus
of value and denying that analogy to human features has any bearing on
moral status

C. Two Emphases and Six Environmental
Positions:

Whatever the paradigm, moral theorists
has disputed the issue of whether it was the individual or the whole that
mattered.

Individualism: Every individual
is a source of value and should be considered the primary unit of value,
from which the value of the whole is derived

Holism: The whole is the
source of value and individuals have value only inasmuch as they belong
to a larger whole

We find this dispute in some of
the controversies between Kantianism and utilitarianism, but we can also
find it within and between a variety of moral traditions

As moral theorists have entered
the environmental arena, they have brought with them this old dispute.

Given the previous classifications
and the foregoing distinction, we can identify six distinct stances towards
the environment:

Two Humanisms:

1) the individual human is
sacred, not to be sacrificed for the good of the whole;

2) human society is what
matters most and individuals derive their value from the good of the whole.

Two Extensionisms:

3) the individual animal
is sacred and should not be sacrificed for the good of the species, human
or otherwise (animal rights);

4) the species is what matters,
individuals derive their value from the whole to which they belong.

Two Biocentrisms:

5) every individual living
thing has value and must be given special consideration before being sacrificed
for the whole (veganism?);

6) the system of nature (i.e.,
the ecosystem) is what matters most and all individuals derive their value
from that larger system (ecocentrism).